Full Version: Comparing the War on Terror
The idea for this thread came from a conversation Moif and I had in the Think Tank thread.
Question for Debate:
Is U.S. President George W. Bush justified in comparing the war on terrorism to the fight against Nazism in World War II?
If so, how are they similiar?
If not, how are they different?
QUOTE
President George W. Bush, likening the struggle against terrorism to the battles of the last century against Nazism and communism, issued a vigorous and unflinching defense Wednesday of the war in Iraq and the broader fight on terror.
<snip>
Terrorists, he said, believe that free societies are "corrupt and decadent, and with a few hard blows will collapse in weakness and in panic." In their threats, Bush said, "we hear the echoes of other enemies in other times, that same swagger and demented logic of the fanatic."
"Like their kind in the past, they will flame and fall and suffer defeat by free men and women." The president compared the stakes in the fight against Middle Eastern terrorism with those of the West's Cold War battles with communism.
"Just as events in Europe determined the outcome of the Cold War," he said, "events in the Middle East will set the course of our current struggle. If that region is abandoned to dictators and terrorists, it will be a constant source of violence and alarm, exporting killers of increasing destructive power to attack America and other free nations." But a spread of democracy, he said, would deprive terrorists of their sponsors, cost them recruits, and resolve their grievances.
"Success in this struggle is our only option," Bush said. "This is the great challenge of our time, the storm in which we fly." Bush has insisted, even amid mounting skepticism at home and abroad, that Iraq can become a model democracy, stimulating democratic reform throughout the region. "A free Iraq in the heart of the Middle East is going to be a game-changer," he said Tuesday.
<snip>
Terrorists, he said, believe that free societies are "corrupt and decadent, and with a few hard blows will collapse in weakness and in panic." In their threats, Bush said, "we hear the echoes of other enemies in other times, that same swagger and demented logic of the fanatic."
"Like their kind in the past, they will flame and fall and suffer defeat by free men and women." The president compared the stakes in the fight against Middle Eastern terrorism with those of the West's Cold War battles with communism.
"Just as events in Europe determined the outcome of the Cold War," he said, "events in the Middle East will set the course of our current struggle. If that region is abandoned to dictators and terrorists, it will be a constant source of violence and alarm, exporting killers of increasing destructive power to attack America and other free nations." But a spread of democracy, he said, would deprive terrorists of their sponsors, cost them recruits, and resolve their grievances.
"Success in this struggle is our only option," Bush said. "This is the great challenge of our time, the storm in which we fly." Bush has insisted, even amid mounting skepticism at home and abroad, that Iraq can become a model democracy, stimulating democratic reform throughout the region. "A free Iraq in the heart of the Middle East is going to be a game-changer," he said Tuesday.
Question for Debate:
Is U.S. President George W. Bush justified in comparing the war on terrorism to the fight against Nazism in World War II?
If so, how are they similiar?
If not, how are they different?
Like several similar threads started in recent days, this type of comparison is fairly broad. It is justifiable to compare these events but I do not think it should be confused with equating these things.
If I am not mistaken, this line of comparison was drawn during the dedication of the World War II memorial. In this I think it was a little too much political opportunism on the day dedicated to those who committed to the struggle of World War II.
I think the biggest problem with a comparison that seems like an equation, is that the quotes cited give the impression that there is only one way to win the war on terrorism. The United States does not face a similar foe to the conventional forces of Nazi Germany or of the Soviet Union in this comparison. We do not face a mortal enemy of that type.
I believe we face a threat that needs more empathy and diplomacy with the conditions that create the threat in the Middle East. It is more like dealing with Tsarist Russia or Weimar Germany. Conditions are not good in the Muslim/Arab world and the continuation of various political, economic and social problems that plague that region and create disciples to the jihadist cause, could lead to the creation of a powerful leader along the scope of Stalin or Hitler. But I don't see a power emerging that will become the military equal of US forces any time soon.
If I am not mistaken, this line of comparison was drawn during the dedication of the World War II memorial. In this I think it was a little too much political opportunism on the day dedicated to those who committed to the struggle of World War II.
I think the biggest problem with a comparison that seems like an equation, is that the quotes cited give the impression that there is only one way to win the war on terrorism. The United States does not face a similar foe to the conventional forces of Nazi Germany or of the Soviet Union in this comparison. We do not face a mortal enemy of that type.
I believe we face a threat that needs more empathy and diplomacy with the conditions that create the threat in the Middle East. It is more like dealing with Tsarist Russia or Weimar Germany. Conditions are not good in the Muslim/Arab world and the continuation of various political, economic and social problems that plague that region and create disciples to the jihadist cause, could lead to the creation of a powerful leader along the scope of Stalin or Hitler. But I don't see a power emerging that will become the military equal of US forces any time soon.
As Eeyore eluded to, almost any two situations, wars or other circumstances can be compared. That does not make them equivalent, however.
In this case, I think many people would point out how Nazi problem arose out of similar circumstances as the terrorist threat. They feel their lands are occupied. They are being oppressed for either being who they are or for past aggressions. They also feel that they are somehow superior to those that oppose them and give no opportunity for peaceful coexistence. All of these apply to a certain degree.
But there are stack differences as well. Nazi Germany was more homogenous than these terrorists, although I think most would agree that the core of terrorists is fairly homogenous. Nazi Germany, of course, was a military power, one which was unchecked even when its bold aggression was finally revealed. The terrorists have no such military power. It is more of a populist (or perhaps anti-populist) movement.
There is a certain truth that these enemies must be defeated not only on the battlefield, but in the realm of ideas. Nazi ideals were shown to be barbaric, intolerant, and heinous. I think the parallel exists here between the Islamo-fascists who are also barbaric, intolerant and heinous. We need to expose the radical beliefs of these terrorists as barbaric, intolerant and heinous.
Yes, there are similarities, but there are also differences. We must win the "war of ideas", however, and that is the central comparison to me.
In this case, I think many people would point out how Nazi problem arose out of similar circumstances as the terrorist threat. They feel their lands are occupied. They are being oppressed for either being who they are or for past aggressions. They also feel that they are somehow superior to those that oppose them and give no opportunity for peaceful coexistence. All of these apply to a certain degree.
But there are stack differences as well. Nazi Germany was more homogenous than these terrorists, although I think most would agree that the core of terrorists is fairly homogenous. Nazi Germany, of course, was a military power, one which was unchecked even when its bold aggression was finally revealed. The terrorists have no such military power. It is more of a populist (or perhaps anti-populist) movement.
There is a certain truth that these enemies must be defeated not only on the battlefield, but in the realm of ideas. Nazi ideals were shown to be barbaric, intolerant, and heinous. I think the parallel exists here between the Islamo-fascists who are also barbaric, intolerant and heinous. We need to expose the radical beliefs of these terrorists as barbaric, intolerant and heinous.
Yes, there are similarities, but there are also differences. We must win the "war of ideas", however, and that is the central comparison to me.
As far as I am concerned this is just another tactic by Karl Rove to associate their campaign against the terrorist with a legitimate cause.
This campaign is in no way similar to communism or Nazism.
This campaign is in no way similar to communism or Nazism.
QUOTE(popeye47 @ Jun 5 2004, 11:19 PM)
As far as I am concerned this is just another tactic by Karl Rove to associate their campaign against the terrorist with a legitimate cause.
Do you have a source for that or is it just some partisan baiting on your part?
QUOTE(Jaime @ Jun 5 2004, 11:51 PM)
QUOTE(popeye47 @ Jun 5 2004, 11:19 PM)
As far as I am concerned this is just another tactic by Karl Rove to associate their campaign against the terrorist with a legitimate cause.
Do you have a source for that or is it just some partisan baiting on your part?
No, it was not a tactic for partisan baiting.
It was just an opinion like the other 3 posts. I assumed I could give an opinion without facts.
If it is against the rules and regulations then I apologize.
QUOTE(popeye47 @ Jun 6 2004, 12:28 AM)
If it is against the rules and regulations then I apologize.
I asked because you seemed to indicate there was some sort of backing for your statement. I wasn't moderating or it would be in a
big red box.
I guess I just don't understand the motive behind posting such a thing if it isn't verifyable.Really there isn't much to be made of the war comparision. Like others have already said, comparisons of any sort can be made. Everyone knows of the Kennedy-Lincoln Coincidences, right?
Is U.S. President George W. Bush justified in comparing the war on terrorism to the fight against Nazism in World War II?
Yes. We are battling an ideology - militant Islam, just as we were fighting an ideology - Nazism in the cold war. I think that message is very important.
If so, how are they similiar?
Nazism is usually associated with fascism. Fascism is described as a system in which "The State not only is authority which governs and molds individual wills with laws and values of spiritual life, but it is also power which makes its will prevail abroad.
Hitler extended his rationalizations into religious doctrine, claiming that those who agreed with and taught his "truths," were "true" or "master" religions, because they would "create mastery" by avoiding comforting lies. Those that preach love and tolerance, "in contravention to the facts," were said to be "slave" or "false" religions.
Hitler saw democracy as a destabilizing force, because it placed power in the hands of ethnic minorities, who he claimed had "incentives" to further "weaken and destabilize" the Empire.
Islamism is an ideology which holds that Islam is not only a religion, but a system that also governs the politicial, economic and social imperatives of the state. A crucial goal of Islamism is to take control of the state in order to implement the Islamist system.
The term is especially applied to Muslim groups (like GIA, Hamas, Abu Sayaf, Al Qaida, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah) that promote theocracy and oppose democracy.
Andrew McCarthy (you have to subscribe to read his article) writes:
Yes. We are battling an ideology - militant Islam, just as we were fighting an ideology - Nazism in the cold war. I think that message is very important.
If so, how are they similiar?
Nazism is usually associated with fascism. Fascism is described as a system in which "The State not only is authority which governs and molds individual wills with laws and values of spiritual life, but it is also power which makes its will prevail abroad.
Hitler extended his rationalizations into religious doctrine, claiming that those who agreed with and taught his "truths," were "true" or "master" religions, because they would "create mastery" by avoiding comforting lies. Those that preach love and tolerance, "in contravention to the facts," were said to be "slave" or "false" religions.
Hitler saw democracy as a destabilizing force, because it placed power in the hands of ethnic minorities, who he claimed had "incentives" to further "weaken and destabilize" the Empire.
Islamism is an ideology which holds that Islam is not only a religion, but a system that also governs the politicial, economic and social imperatives of the state. A crucial goal of Islamism is to take control of the state in order to implement the Islamist system.
The term is especially applied to Muslim groups (like GIA, Hamas, Abu Sayaf, Al Qaida, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah) that promote theocracy and oppose democracy.
Andrew McCarthy (you have to subscribe to read his article) writes:
QUOTE
Terrorism is not an enemy. It is a method. You cannot, and you do not, make war on a method. War is made on an identified – and identifiable – enemy.
In the here and now, that enemy is militant Islam – a very particular practice and interpretation of a very particular set of religious, political and social principles.
In the here and now, that enemy is militant Islam – a very particular practice and interpretation of a very particular set of religious, political and social principles.
The problem with this debate is that National Socialism and Communism
are and were legitimate forms of government (opinions of such not withstanding) that had footholds within actual countries with established boundaries and formal international relations.
Terrorism (in its truest form, not to be confused with "State-Sponsored" Terror) is committed by small bands of criminals who have no international ties, no governing bodies, and no international borders. The people who commit such acts, normally, have been oppressed economically and socially, have little education, and feel their only recourse is to strap a bomb around their chest and get their revenge.
are and were legitimate forms of government (opinions of such not withstanding) that had footholds within actual countries with established boundaries and formal international relations.
Terrorism (in its truest form, not to be confused with "State-Sponsored" Terror) is committed by small bands of criminals who have no international ties, no governing bodies, and no international borders. The people who commit such acts, normally, have been oppressed economically and socially, have little education, and feel their only recourse is to strap a bomb around their chest and get their revenge.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.